with the Order of Vacation herein issued, the panel shall further address the matter of offset in conjunction with Nationwide’s payment of fifty percent of the administrative costs. This latter portion of the district court’s opinion must be vacated for two reasons. First, the arbitration order plainly permits Nationwide to offset its debt to Home only by the administrative costs of the Rutty pool that the panel ordered Home to pay, and by no other debt. This constitutes the panel’s determination of the “scope of debts” subject to offset. The district court does not have the power to order the panel to reconsider this issue, even if it finds the panel’s disposition unfair or unjust. See United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29, 38, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, the absence of a record of decision
holding that for immunity an official must first prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred  holding that as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority a court should not vacate his decision holding that the court may not overturn the administrative law judges factual findings as long as they are supported by competent substantial evidence holding that as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within his scope of authority that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision holding that the court has an affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority