What parliamentary term is applied to a motion that conflicts with an organization's constitution or by-laws?

The term that describes a motion conflicting with an organization's constitution or by-laws is typically referred to as 'improper.' This classification indicates that the motion does not align with the established rules and guidelines that govern the organization’s operations. Such motions can disrupt the structural integrity and order of procedures, as they do not adhere to the foundational documents that outline how the organization should function.

This term is significant in parliamentary procedure because ensuring that all motions comply with the organization's governing documents helps maintain order and integrity in decision-making processes. Inappropriate motions not only threaten adherence to the established rules but also risk undermining the authority of the governing documents, therefore making the use of the term 'improper' particularly relevant in this context.

The other options do not have the same specificity or traditional use in parliamentary language to denote a motion that is in conflict with foundational governance documents. Thus, 'improper' stands out as the correct choice when speaking about motions that fail to comply with an organization’s constitution or by-laws.